MACT | Deceased’s Class 12 Status Alone Cannot Lead To Nil Income, Allahabad High Court Enhances Compensation By Computing Income As Unskilled Labour
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain allowed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation arising from a motor accident in which a 22-year-old bachelor died after being hit by a bus, leaving his mother and siblings as claimants. The Court held that a person’s status as a Class 12 student does not, by itself, justify treating him as having no earnings, and found the tribunal’s adoption of a nominal annual income figure to be inadequate in the absence of documentary proof. Recalculating compensation by treating the deceased as an unskilled workman and applying minimum wages with future prospects and appropriate multiplier, the Court modified the award and directed the transport corporation to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
The appeal arose from a claim for enhancement of compensation awarded for a fatal road accident. The claimants, being the mother, sister, and brothers of the deceased, approached the High Court challenging the compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation amount along with interest, treating the income of the deceased as notional due to the absence of documentary proof regarding employment and earnings.
The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning a monthly income on which the family was dependent. They asserted that the income assessed by the Tribunal was inadequate, that no amount had been awarded towards future prospects, that compensation under non-pecuniary heads was insufficient, and that an incorrect multiplier had been applied considering the age of the deceased. It was further submitted that since the father of the deceased had predeceased the accident, the deceased was the sole earning member of the family.
The respondent corporation opposed the appeal, submitting that there was no documentary evidence to establish the occupation or income of the deceased and that he was studying at the time of the accident. It was argued that the Tribunal had correctly assessed compensation on a notional basis. The appeal required consideration of income assessment, deduction towards personal expenses, future prospects, applicable multiplier, and compensation under conventional heads in light of statutory rules and judicial precedents.
The Court noted that the factum of accident and negligence was not in dispute, observing that “since no cross appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, as such, the factum of accident and negligence of offending driver is not disputed.”
On the issue of income, the Court recorded that “merely because the deceased was studying in Class 12, it cannot be presumed that he was not earning anything.” It further observed that the Tribunal had assessed income at ₹15,000 per annum due to lack of documentary proof, but stated that “the tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased by presuming that he was earning Rs.15,000 per annum, which is grossly inadequate.”
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents and stated that “in the absence of documentary proof of income and occupation of the deceased, the tribunal was supposed to assess the compensation by treating the deceased to be an unskilled workman and was required to assess the compensation on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled workman prevailing in the State.” It recorded that the applicable minimum wages at the relevant time were ₹6,362 per month.
Regarding future prospects, the Court observed that “Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 mandates that when the deceased was aged below 40 years on the date of accident, the claimants are also entitled to compensation on future prospects @50% of his income.” It noted that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount under this head.
On the multiplier, the Court stated that “since the deceased was about 22 years old at the time of accident, a multiplier of 18 was required to be applied,” and recorded that application of a multiplier of 16 by the Tribunal was incorrect.
Addressing deduction towards personal expenses, the Court referred to the principles governing cases involving bachelors and observed that “even though the deceased was bachelor but since he was the sole bread earner of his family, it will be appropriate that only 1/3rd amount of the income of the deceased is deducted towards his personal expenses.”
With respect to non-pecuniary heads, the Court recorded that the claimants were entitled to enhanced amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses in accordance with settled law.
The Court directed that “the compensation payable to the claimants is redetermined” by reassessing the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages, allowing future prospects at the prescribed rate, applying the correct multiplier, and granting enhanced amounts under conventional heads.
“The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,04,092/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment. The impugned award of the tribunal dated 30.04.2016 is modified to the above extent. If any amount has been paid previously, the same shall be adjusted.”
“If any amount has been paid by U.P.S.R.T.C. previously, then it is entitled to adjust the amount accordingly,” and that “U.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned tribunal within two months. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants keeping in view their age and dependency.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Nigamendra Shukla
For the Respondents: Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Case Title: Smt. Kashmiri Devi and Others v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:9263
Case Number: First Appeal From Order No. 2841 of 2016
Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain
